For one I do not know wether it's ok or not to bring KSM to NY for trial. It makes sense as he is not termed as Prisoner of War*POW*..if he was it
would come under Geneva Convention and Bush could be tried of war crimes for illegal war in Iraq and detaine abuse and totrture as International
Criminal Court/Geneva Convention stipulates.

KSM is not detained under status of Prisoner of War but Enemy Combatant, thus he is eligible for trial in civil court.

WASHINGTON, Feb. 8, 2002 – It is because the United States places such emphasis on the Geneva Convention that American officials do not
consider Al Qaeda covered by the agreement nor are they willing to award the Taliban detainees POW status.

President Bush, Fleischer said, had decided that the Geneva Convention of 1949 applies to the conflict with the Taliban in Afghanistan, but not to the
conflict with Al Qaeda terrorists in Afghanistan or anywhere else. He also determined that Taliban detainees do not meet the convention's criteria
for prisoner of war status.

White House lawyers thought long and hard about the situation before making recommendations to Bush, Rumsfeld said. The lawyers were worried about the
precedent their decision could set about detainees in future conflicts, he added.

"Prudence dictated that the U.S. government take care in determining the status of Taliban and Al Qaeda detainees," he said. "When the Geneva
Convention was signed in 1949, it was crafted by sovereign states to deal with conflicts between sovereign states." The current war on terrorism is
not a conflict envisioned by the framers of the Geneva Convention, he said.

Source: www.defenselink.mil...
Bush and Rumsfield emphasised these prisoners should not come under POW status so they use the loophole in Geneva Convention.

While keeping in mind only POW's are tried in millitary tribunal and not enemy combatants, the previous administration twisted the rules as suited to
them. These prisoners should have been tried in a Civil Court from the beginning under the status of "Enemy Combatant".

Millitary Tribunal is designed to put on trial P.O.W and not enemy combatants.

Note too, he was senator Obama in that speech, back before I guess he thought about having to sign the death warrants if they are found guilty, and
the implications of such. This way, if found guilty, the blood is not his hands. That in itself is fairly telling.

I know where you are coming from with those relegious bigoted statements. Instead of discussing facts you are bringing religion into this which I have
seen you do in numerous Obama related threads. Finally, I have to say it to you why don't you put those bigoted religious views of your's where the
sun never shines.

What do you mean by "blood is not in his hands"? I will tell you , you mean to say since Obama is muslim he would hesitate to put anyother muslim on
trial which would result in his death. Why dont you say clearly your disturbing religious views insteadd of vieled statements?

Another thing to be noted here, even if he got death sentence in a millitary tribunal or civil court it will be the judge in both cases who will sign
the court ruling and not the president. So technically Obama will anyway not have "blood on his hands".

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.